next story

Why Nearly Everything You’ve Read About Men and Relationships Is Wrong

I just read a very fascinating book called The Case for Falling in Love: Why We Can't Master the Madness of Love—and Why That's the Best Part. Author Mari Ruti is a Harvard-educated professor of critical theory who takes down our very fixed stereotypes about men and love—mostly because these ideas limit us and our potential in relationships. She says that men are not from Mars, they are not something to be “figured out,” and that it’s okay to show your emotions, it’s okay to get hurt, and it’s okay to take a cue from the characters of Gossip Girl. I was skeptical at first, but after reading the book and asking her some questions I’m a believer. Read on.

Author Mari Ruti.

Smitten: Why do women feel it’s okay to be helpless when it comes to practical needs (changing a light bulb) but that we aren’t supposed to have emotional needs (because men supposedly can’t handle that)?

Ruti: One of the most entrenched of our social stereotypes is the idea that men are pathetically helpless when it comes to emotions, but that they like to feel “useful” in practical ways (such as fixing your kitchen sink or changing the oil in your car). A lot of women have internalized this idea on a very deep level, so that when they’re in a relationship, they tend to exaggerate their “technical” ineptitude while simultaneously hiding their emotional needs. In other words, they have been programmed to think that it’s okay to ask for a man’s help with hanging a picture, but that admitting that you have emotional needs will immediately scare him away. My point about all of this is that such stereotypes limit the human potential of all of us, boxing men and women into rigid ways of relating that do not necessarily result in interesting or genuinely loving relationships. And sadly, they cause a lot of women to put up with unsatisfying relationships because they are too afraid to express themselves honestly. But, really, why would you want to date a guy who can’t (or refuses to) handle your emotions? What’s the point of being in a relationship if you have to constantly watch your step because you’re worried that the slightest display of emotional vulnerability will alienate your guy?

Smitten: How could playing hard-to-get chase away quality guys?

Ruti: Both men and women tend to be fascinated by what eludes their grasp. But there is a limit to this in the sense that most of us will, fortunately, not cross the line to stalking someone who doesn’t meet us half way. I think that the same applies to quality guys. They will back away pretty quickly if they start to feel that their interest might not be reciprocated. More generally speaking, I’m opposed to the whole “game-playing” mentality of our romantic culture because this mentality robs love of everything that is noble and transformative about it. It turns love into a formula, killing its soul, and replacing genuine passion by rule-bound pragmatism. Who wants to live like that? It’s both banal and exhausting. And it has next to nothing to do with love.

Smitten: Let’s talk about the characters of Gossip Girl. Why are they good (romantic) examples for us?

Ruti: I think that Gossip Girl—and a lot of other television shows aimed at younger audiences - is much more “up to date” about gender than most self-help literature. Self-help books often advocate gender roles that seem to belong back in the 1950s, whereas shows like Gossip Girl present characters who are not that easy to categorize. The three heartthrobs of Gossip Girl - Nate, Chuck, and Dan - are all emotionally complex characters who want love and emotional connection just as much as the female characters do. And they are all very good at the fine art of pining for someone who doesn’t return their affections. Even Chuck, the show’s self-proclaimed bad boy, routinely shows a lot of emotional fragility. In fact, one reason viewers are drawn to this character is that he manages to convey a lot of underlying pain exactly at those moments when he’s supposed to be the toughest (say, when he walks away from Blair). On the flipside, the female characters are strong, ambitious, intelligent, and - best of all - sexually assertive. Neither Serena van de Woodsen nor Blair Waldorf falls into the female stereotypes of our time. And Vanessa is the quintessential “liberated” woman who follows her heart and isn’t afraid to (sometimes) choose her career over a man. The show could be criticized for all kinds of other issues (elitism, unrealistic standards of beauty, homogenous racial dynamics, etc.), but when it comes to gender, it’s quite advanced - which is one reason it speaks to a lot of young people. I think that there are a ton of young folks who couldn’t care less about the whole Mars/Venus mentality (in part because this mentality doesn’t reflect their lived reality). Shows like Gossip Girl recognize this, which is why they are so popular.

Smitten: A lot of women believe that we need to understand the male psyche in order to make romance work. Why do you say there’s no such thing as the male psyche?

Ruti: I think that the so-called “male psyche” is one of the most damaging cultural myths ever invented. There is no doubt that there are “masculine” and “feminine” patterns of behavior in our culture - so that, yes, men watch football more often than women do - but these patterns are not biologically determined or somehow “inherent” to male or female psychology. They are a result of an immense machinery of gender socialization that teaches us - from the moment we are born - what it means to be a man or a woman. This machinery is so powerful that by the time we reach adulthood, we take our gendered ways of being totally for granted, imagining that they are just how we “are.” But if you pause to think about it, it’s clear that none of us were born into the world knowing that men are supposed to like football more than women. This is a cultural belief we picked up somewhere along the line. Worst of all, the idea of the “male psyche” has historically been used to convince women that there are some forms of male behavior - such as infidelity, inability to commit, or emotional incompetence - that are unchangeable. This mentality basically tells women that they need to “accept” or even “submit to” hurtful male behavior because men, supposedly (because of this infamous “male psyche”), can’t help themselves. I think that a lot of times this is just a convenient way to let men off the hook for questionable behavior. And the notion of the “male psyche” is also limiting to men in the sense that it deprives men of many wonderful human qualities (because these qualities are somehow not “manly”). I’m really tired of this kind of thinking, not only because it impoverishes all of us, but because it makes it difficult for women to ask for what they need in their relationships.

Smitten: But why do so many men behave in such similar, guy-like ways? For example, instead of calling you right away to apologize, they wait until you’ve cooled down. Women don’t do that because we feel too bad letting someone suffer.

Ruti: Over time, we have come to think that X behavior is “inherent” when in fact X results from long-standing processes of socialization. It may well be that there are a lot of men who don’t know how to apologize because they can’t “deal” with certain kinds of emotional scenarios. But I can guarantee that they weren’t born that way. It’s because they haven’t been taught the same interpersonal skills as many women have. Women, in fact, have often been trained to apologize so readily that we sometimes do it too much - as if we were apologizing for taking up space in the world. And, again, there’s really nothing more convenient for a guy than being able to fall back on the idea that, as a man, he can’t deal with emotions or doesn’t know how to apologize. It makes it far too easy for him to stay arrogant. One of my goals in The Case for Falling in Love is to tell women that they have alternatives - that they don’t need to put up with this because there are plenty of men in the world who are not like this, who, for example, are perfectly savvy with emotions. Most men I know are lovely that way. And the ones who are not, well, they’re not worth my time. This is why I don’t understand the deluge of self-help books that are trying to teach women how to attract men who display all of our culture’s most horrid stereotypes about men. Why would any woman want to date one of these guys? Personally, I would run the other direction.

Thank you, Dr. Ruti!

Okay, readers: What do you think of her advice? Did it get you to rethink some of your behavior, or how accepting you are of the behavior of others?